You are here: / Judges
, , ,

SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined plaintiff’s surgery, even after a defense request for a pre-surgical physical exam, is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions. In this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after a defense demand for a pre-surgery medical exam:

… [T]he First Department has recently rejected the proposition that a spoliation analysis can apply in such a situation. In Gilliam v Uni Holdings, LLC (201 AD3d 83), the First Department held “that the condition of one’s body is not the type of evidence that is subject to a spoliation analysis” … . After noting that “[s]poliation analysis has long been applied to a party’s destruction of inanimate evidence,” the First Department concluded that the “state of one’s body is fundamentally different from inanimate evidence, and medical treatment, including surgery, is entirely distinct from the destruction of documents or tangible evidence which spoliation sanctions attempt to ameliorate. To find that a person has an ‘obligation,’ to preserve his or her body in an injured state so that a defendant may conduct [a medical examination], is antithetical to our belief in personal liberty and control over our own bodies” … . * * *

We agree with the First Department’s conclusion in this regard, for the reasons stated in its opinion. It is not reasonable to require a plaintiff to delay medical treatment, and potentially prolong his or her suffering, solely to allow a defendant to examine the plaintiff’s body in a presurgical state. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has not “refuse[d] to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fail[ed] to disclose information which . . . ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126). Fadeau v Corona Indus. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03453, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after the defense demand for a pre-surgery physical exam. Joining the First Department, the Second Department held that surgery is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions.

 

, , ,

THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the second motion for summary judgment made by the bank in this foreclosure action was not a valid motion to renew and violated the “successive summary judgment rule:”

“While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the movant must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the information in the first instance. When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal” … . … [P]laintiff failed to provide any justification for its failure to present the new evidence supporting the second motion as part of its prior motion.

“Even considered as a successive motion for summary judgment, such a motion ‘should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to present good cause.

The second motion also did not fit within the “narrow exception” to the successive summary judgment rule … . This narrow exception permits entertainment of a successive motion when it is “substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts” … . Here, entertaining a second summary judgment motion involved review of multiple disputed issues, including whether the plaintiff established the defendants’ default, the plaintiff’s compliance with the contractual condition precedent, and the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1304. Thus, rather than eliminating a burden on the Supreme Court, the court’s consideration of the second motion actually imposed an additional burden on the court. “‘Successive motions for the same relief burden the courts and contribute to the delay and cost of litigation. A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance'” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gittens, 2023 NY Slip Op 03373, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The failure to explain why available evidence was not submitted in the first summary judgment motion will result in denial of a motion to renew.

Practice Point: The second motion here violated the “successive summary judgment motion” rule. The criteria are explained.

 

, ,

OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR A LATE (POST-NOTE-OF-ISSUE) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined outstanding discovery furnished good cause for plaintiff’s late (post-note-of-issue) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. The appellate division then reached the merits and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

… [P]laintiff demonstrated good cause for his delay in moving for summary judgment … . As an initial matter, we note that the court directed the plaintiff, over the plaintiff’s objection, to file a note of issue or face sanctions or dismissal of the action, despite the fact that a significant amount of discovery, including … the depositions of the parties, had yet to occur … . * * *

… [P]laintiff established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendants’ failures, as the owner and the general contractor at the construction site, to satisfy their nondelegable duty to provide him with a safe and adequate ladder necessary for him to perform his elevation-related work at the site … . * * *

… [D]efendants established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence by demonstrating that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition that the plaintiff alleged caused his injuries and that they had no authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work at the time of his accident … . Panfilow v 66 E. 83rd St. Owners Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03357, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Outstanding discovery constitutes good cause for a late (post-note-of-issue) motion for summary judgment.

Practice Point: Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall cause.

Practice Point: Defendants entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action–no notice of the condition and no authority to control the means and methods of plaintiff’s work.

 

, ,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ordered closure of the courtroom pursuant to Judiciary Law section 4 in this divorce proceeding. The criteria for closure of a courtroom are discussed in some detail. Here the judge ordered some documents to be submitted under seal and then based the closure on the existence of sealed documents as evidence. That justification for closure is not one of the exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4:

The motion court did not provide the public and the press adequate notice of the husband’s courtroom closure request. Because it directed the parties to file their submissions on the application for courtroom closure by email, the submissions were not reflected on “the publicly maintained docket entries,” as required … .

We also reverse on substantive grounds. “Public access to court proceedings is strongly favored, both as a matter of constitutional law . . . and as statutory imperative …” … . In the order appealed here, the motion court improperly read an exception into the “statutory imperative” of NY Judiciary Law §4 that does not exist. The first part of that statute, entitled “Sittings of courts to be public,” states: “The sittings of every court within this state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend the same . . .” The only exceptions to this rule are set forth in the statute’s next sentence: “except that in all proceedings and trials in cases for divorce, seduction, rape, assault with intent to commit rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in its discretion, exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly interested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court” … .

Here, the motion court used its discretion to insert another, unwritten category of cases into the statutory exception: proceedings that could entail arguments that implicate documents filed under seal. We find its decision to do so to have been improper … . Paulson v Paulson, 2023 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: A request for courtroom closure must be accessible by the public, not concealed in email exchanges.

Practice Point: Courtroom closure based on a reason not included in the public-trial exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4 is an abuse of discretion.

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE WHICH CONTEMPLATED ONLY OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES FOR A BREACH; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS TO, SUA SPONTE, AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the letter of intent (LOI) was an agreement to agree which, if breached, supported only out-of-pocket damages, not cover damages. The judge improperly relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs:

… [R]ecovery for breach of a preliminary agreement’s confidentiality provision could not be based on “the theory that it would have acquired” the company at issue, as the “defendant[] w[as] not bound to go forward with the transaction” … . * * *

… [T]he text of the LOI and the surrounding circumstances support a finding that the parties did not contemplate cover damages at the time of contracting. That the parties entered only a preliminary agreement with no obligation to close a transaction and no specific damage provision for breach conclusively shows that defendant did not wish to assume the risk of covering whatever replacement transaction plaintiffs might pursue … .

… [T]he court improperly relied on credibility determinations to resolve material issues that should have been resolved by the jury. It is “not the function of a court deciding a summary judgment motion to make credibility determinations” … . Cresco Labs N.Y., LLC v Fiorello Pharms., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03305, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: Here the letter of intent was an agreement to agree which contemplated only out-of-pocket damages for a breach.

Practice Point: The judge should not have relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs.

 

,

A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a summary judgment motion brought before issue is joined should not be considered:

Initially, we discern no error with Supreme Court treating plaintiff’s order to show cause, filed two days after commencement of the action, essentially as a motion for summary judgment seeking ultimate relief … . However, “[a] motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined and the requirement is strictly adhered to” … . “Particularly in an action for declaratory judgment, all of the material facts and circumstances should be fully developed before the respective rights of the parties may be adjudicated” … . Accordingly, rather than reaching the merits, Supreme Court should have determined that plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment at the time and denied the motion as premature … . That defendant answered and issue was joined prior to the return date of the order to show cause does not change this determination … . Sackett v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 03274, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: A summary judgment motion is premature if brought before issue is joined and should not be considered by the court.

 

,

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant of the details of postrelease supervision rendered the plea invalid:

… [A]t the plea proceeding, the County Court mentioned that the sentence would include postrelease supervision, but did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed, nor did the court indicate the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed. As the People concede, the court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . People v Pryor, 2023 NY Slip Op 03241, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: A guilty plea is not knowing, voluntary and intelligent unless the defendant is informed of the specific period of postrelease supervision and the maximum potential period of postrelease supervision. It is not enough simply to mention that postrelease supervision will be imposed.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S OR PROSECUTOR’S KNOWLEDGE; THE MAJORITY HELD THIS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; A TWO-JUDGE DISSENT DISAGREED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, determined the fact that defendant was wearing a stun belt without the knowledge of the judge or the prosecutor was not a mode of proceedings error. However questions remain about whether defendant received effective assistance of counsel (failure to object) remain and a hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction on that ground is required. The dissent argued the stun-belt-error constituted a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

It is undisputed that sheriff officials required defendant to wear a stun belt at trial, that neither the People nor the trial court were aware of that fact, and that defendant failed to preserve any argument concerning the stun belt. Because the trial court did not articulate a particularized need for defendant to wear a stun belt, the use of that restraint was error … . The courts below thus did not abuse their discretion by summarily denying the portion of defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion based on his unpreserved assertion of a Buchanan [13 NY3d 1] error, which could have been raised before the trial court.

The courts below erred by summarily denying the portion of defendant’s motion concerning his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Given the conceded Buchanan violation, factual issues exist concerning trial counsel’s effectiveness. For instance, County Court should determine if counsel had a legitimate explanation for declining to object. There has been no hearing concerning whether defendant voiced his concerns about wearing the stun belt to his trial attorney as he contends … . Further, defendant submitted evidence in support of his motion which raises factual questions as to whether he consented to wearing the stun belt at trial … . Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim should be decided under the applicable standard … on a full record following a hearing … . People v Bradford, 2023 NY Slip Op 03187, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: Before a defendant is required to wear a stun belt during trial, the judge must explain the reasons on the record. Here neither the judge nor the prosecutor was aware defendant was wearing a stun belt. The majority determined the belt did not constitute a mode of proceedings error. The two-judge dissent disagreed.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PRO SE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a memorandum decision which did not describe the facts, determined the judge did not conduct a “searching inquiry” before allowing defendant to proceed pro se:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered. In contrast to People v Duarte (37 NY3d 1218 [2022]), the trial court here recognized defendant as having unequivocally requested to proceed pro se. However, the court failed to conduct the required “‘searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver [of the right to counsel] is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” (People v Silburn, 31 NY3d 144, 150 [2018] … ). People v Holmes, 2023 NY Slip Op 03186, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: When a defendant requests to go ahead with a trial without an attorney, the judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” to determine if the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The failure to do so requires and new trial.

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE STATED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO AN APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [D]efendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because County Court’s oral colloquy mischaracterized it as an “absolute bar” to the taking of an appeal … . …

Furthermore, the written waiver executed by defendant did not contain any clarifying language to correct deficiencies in the oral colloquy. Rather, it perpetuated the oral colloquy’s mischaracterization of the waiver of the right to appeal as an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and even stated that the rights defendant was waiving included the “right to have an attorney appointed” if she could not afford one and the “right to submit a brief and argue before an appellate court issues relating to [her] sentence and conviction” … . People v Shea’Honnie D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03137, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: A waiver of appeal is not absolute and the judge’s characterizing a waiver as absolute invalidates it.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy